ABSTRACT
The implications of changes to primary law realised by the Lisbon Treaty are also explored, to determine whether this case law represents limits as policy, facet of competence limitation. In the context of fundamental rights, margin of appreciation is expression of subsidiarity. It is associated primarily with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, providing a mechanism through which that Court devolves decisions that involve the balancing of different interests to national authorities. The Court of Justice has addressed the compliance of Member State action with EU fundamental rights standards in key lines of case law. The issues discussed above also raise a practical question about the sustainability of the more rigid uniformity approach to EU law in a Union of 28 states. The decisions in Schmidberger, Omega and Sayn-Wittgenstein reflect a different approach: one that still takes the realisation of free movement rights – as one of the Union’s core shared values – as a starting point.
